Search form

alvinmcewen

The fire chief of Atlanta, GA, Kelvin Cochran, was just dismissed because of a self-published book he wrote which was viewed as homophobic. According to Think Progress:

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D) announced Tuesday that he has fired Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, who had previously been suspended for publishing and distributing a book condemning homosexuality..

. . . Since Cochran’s suspension last month, he has become a bit of a martyr for conservatives, who believe he has been persecuted for his religious beliefs. J. Edgar White, executive director of the Georgia Baptist Convention, suggested that Cochran was among those “who are punished or marginalized for their faith” and called on Christians to purchase his book and support him.

Reed was adamant during Tuesday’s press conference that Cochran’s religious beliefs were not the reason he was fired. His book, Who Told You That You Were Naked?, was published in violation of Atlanta’s Standards of Conduct, which requires approval from the Ethics Officer and the Board of Ethics. According to Reed, Cochran’s “actions and decision-making undermine his ability to manage our fire department” because employees need to feel that they are “a valued member of the team and that fairness and respect guide employment.

That's the story before conservatives and the religious right will attempt to make Cochran the newest martyr of the concept of 'religious liberty.' 'Religious liberty' is a phrase these individuals have coined to claim that those who practice their version Christian faith in America are supposedly being persecuted because of their objections to homosexuality and marriage equality. To them, "persecution" is a wide and loaded term which includes being forced to serve gay customers or, as we see with the above situation with Cochran, not being allowed to "voice objections" to homosexuality in places where such objections aren't exactly conducive or appropriate to the environment.

It is a concept which is gaining speed now that marriage equality is becoming more accepted and swiftly the law throughout the country. 'Religious liberty' has gained support from the "fire and brimestone" sect, who see persecution behind every bush, to the concern trolls who clamor that since gays are gaining the right to marry, we should "be nice and respectful" to those who oppose our general equality.

In other words, "religious liberty" is a load of nonsense. It's equivalent to a good paint job a bad car salesman puts on an busted up clunker in a sad attempt to cover that it's stinker.

First of all gays were not given the right to marry. It was a right which should have been ours from the start and one which we earned by slowly slogging through the trenches and terrain of this ridiculous so-called culture war.

Then there is the second point. At what point are rights given in "tit-for-tat" compromises? Just where is it said that since gays are winning the right to marry, we have to forfeit our dignity, respect, and rights as taxpayers? Since when is there a right for businesses treat gays like second-class citizens even though our tax dollars help to keep these businesses safe? Since when is there a right to minimize our lives to a concept or a "lifestyle" so one can pretend that he or she is not denigrating human beings, even if that denigration is done on the job and, in the case of Cochran, by our bosses?

And why do gays have to deal with such treatment under the guise of "religious liberty" when no other group of Americans have to? Cochran's book also denigrated women and people of the Jewish faith. If there were no words about gays in his book, would there be any controversy regarding "religious liberty" with regards to his firing?

You can call it "religious liberty" all you want. I call it homophobia and it's worst kind, too. It's practiced by folks who are too self-righteous to step down from that nonexistent stairway to Heaven they think they are building for themselves.

Earlier this week, the lgbt community suffered a nasty defeat in Fayetteville, Arkansas. According to LGBTQNation:

Voters in Fayetteville, Ark., on Tuesday repealed a controversial LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination ordinance approved by the city council in August.

KFSM-TV reports that 52 percent of voters cast ballots to repeal the ordinance, compared to 48 percent who voted to retain the measure — a difference of fewer than 500 votes, with turnout less than 30 percent of registered voters.The ordinance, approved by the city council in a 6-2 vote on August 20, prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the areas of housing, employment and public accommodations.

LGBTQNation points out how this vote got nationwide attention due to the inclusion of the reality television stars, the Duggar family:

Opposition to the ordinance gained national attention due in part to the efforts of the Duggar family of TLC’s reality series “19 Kids and Counting.” In August, Duggar matriarch Michelle Duggar recorded a robocall urging residents to pressure council members to oppose the measure, claiming it would lead to women going topless at public swimming pools, men using women’s restrooms, and allow pedophiles and sexual predators to abuse people. As of October 31, the Duggars had donated $10,000 toward the city council campaigns of the ordinance’s three most outspoken critics, two of whom were listed as contacts on a press release for the repeal effort.

In fact, when vote was announced, Josh Duggar, who spoke against the ordinance and is also employed by the anti-gay Family Research Council, sent out a mindboggling tweet claiming that overturning the ordinance was in actuality a victory for equality.

One good thing about this setback – however minor – is that it exposes the hypocritical nature of the Duggar family.

Folks who were angry at how the Duggars were spreading inaccurate information about the ordinance signed a petition demanding that their show be canceled. Other lgbt activists used the controversy to raise a large amount of money for an Arkansas charity, Lucie’s Place, devoted to helping homeless lgbt youth.

The Duggars themselves and their allies claimed that they were under a so-called “malicious attack” by “radical homosexual activists” who attacked them because of their faith and sought to deny them their “religious liberty.”

However, this victory in Fayetteville contradicts the “religious liberty” card played by the Duggars.

You can’t exploit your fame as reality tv stars to bear false witness against the lgbt community and deny us equality while simultaneously claiming victimhood status when we react to your actions.

The sad thing is that I think the Duggars family actually think they can get away with this subterfuge.

Steve Anderson, the pastor of Arizona’s Faithful Word Baptist Church, has caused shock and revulsion for his recent claim that the AIDS crisis would end if gays were executed. However through it all, folks are missing a point that only us wonky individuals would bring up.

In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center listed Anderson’s church as an anti-gay hate group along with several other organizations. Of course much of the attention following this announcement had to do with the other groups SPLC listed, particularly the Family Research Council and the American Family Association.

In fact, it caused such a stir that FRC began a campaign entitled Start Debating, Stop Hating. Through this campaign, the group claimed that SPLC was trying to ‘silence’ Christian groups:

The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the political spectrum, is doing just that.

The group, which was once known for combating racial bigotry, is now attacking several groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including marriage as the union of a man and a woman. How does the SPLC attack? By labeling its opponents “hate groups.” No discussion. No consideration of the issues. No engagement. No debate!

FRC did not differentiate between itself and other organizations named as anti-gay hate groups. However the organization did run a full page ad in Politico. According to Talking Points Memo, several Republican leaders signed on to this ad:

The ad is undersigned by a number of leading Republican politicians, social conservative and mainstream alike: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Sen, Jim DeMint (R-SC), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Rep. Steve King (R-IA), and even Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

I should also point out that SPLC received considerable criticism from many circles for supposedly attacking “Christian groups.”

So what’s the point with me bringing all of this up? Certainly not to imply that FRC believes that gays should be executed. However, it should be noted that FRC is tacitly silent about Anderson and his church right now, both of which the organization defended in 2010, as are the Republican leaders who supported FRC’s campaign back then.

And it should also be noted that Anderson’s recent homophobic spew only proves SPLC’s point about anti-gay hate groups who hide their vindictive nature behind “Judeo-Christian” beliefs. And also that SPLC was not trying to “silence Christians.”

President Reagan gets a lot of deserved flack for his negligence in the early days of the AIDS crisis. Today, we learned that there needs to be some flack dispensed around because Reagan isn't the only person in his Administration who needs to be called to the carpet.

Anyone who is familiar with Gary Bauer's anti-gay extremism will not be surprised to learn that his bigotry goes way back. Just in time for World AIDS Day, we now know that when Bauer was working in the Reagan White House, he fought hard to keep gay people off the nation’s first AIDS commission.

Right Wing Watch published part of a memo he sent to Reagan regarding this:

3. Millions of Americans try to raise their children to believe that homosexuality is immoral. In many states homosexual practices are illegal, including sodomy. For you to appoint a known homosexual to a Presidential Commission will give homosexuality a stamp of acceptability. It will drive a wedge between us and many of our socially conservative supporters.

4. While it is true that homosexuals have been major victims of AIDS, they are also responsible for its spread. Recent students show the average gay man with AIDS has had over 150 different sexual partners in the previous 12 months.

Bauer proposed instead appointing a relative of someone with AIDS, or a caregiver, or as a last resort, a “reformed” homosexual: “that is, someone not currently living a gay life style. We have identified several individuals that meet that criteria.”

In the end, Reagan ignored Bauer’s pleadings and appointed Frank Lilly, an openly gay geneticist, to the Presidential Commission on the HIV Epidemic.

Right Wing Watch also goes on to say that Bauer undermined the fight against HIV/AIDS in the Reagan Administration by keeping then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop from gaining access to the Reagan and the cabinet after the president asked Koop to prepare a report on AIDS.

Bauer’s role as an anti-gay zealot in the Reagan White House was also revealed in "Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite" by D. Michael Lindsay.

As Kyle reported back in 2010, the book says Bauer interfered with the efforts of Surgeon General C. Everett Koop when he was tasked with drafting a report on AIDS for President Reagan:

[In 1986] President Reagan asked the surgeon general to prepare a report on AIDS as the United States confirmed its ten-thousandth case. Leaders of the evangelical movement did not want Koop to write the report, nor did senior White House staffers who shared Koop's evangelical convictions. As Dr. Koop related to me, "Gary Bauer [Reagan's chief advisor on domestic policy] ... was my nemesis in Washington because he kept me from the president. He kept me from the cabinet and he set up a wall of enmity between me and most of the people that surrounded Reagan because he believed that anybody who had AIDS ought to die with it. That was God's punishment for them."

Bauer is presently involved in the Campaign for Working Families and Our American Values; two organization which supposedly works for "family values and faith." Bauer is also looked upon as one of the leading voices of the conservative evangelical movement.

In my eyes, Bauer has taken his place amongst such notables as 'Bloody Mary' Tudor, Tomas de Torquemada, and others whose manic religious zeal and self-righteous mindset caused untold chaos to a host of innocents.

To some folks, maybe I am being a bit hyperbolic. Perhaps, but then again perhaps not. I remember when HIV/AIDS came on the scene and began knocking down members of the lgbt community like a goddamn hurricane. I remember the ugly things people said about those affected by HIV/AIDS, such as when columnist Pat Buchanan said that nature was reaping retribution on the gay community.

And I remember, even though I was too young to take part in, the demand that Reagan address this issue. No one knows what would have happened had Reagan addressed the HIV/AIDS crisis sooner than he did. But it is rather nauseating and disturbing that there was someone in his cabinet who worked to undermine the fight against HIV/AIDS because he felt that those affected "deserved" what they got.

So what can be done with this knowledge of Bauer's "activities?" Just a simple word of mouth. Don't let it be forgotten. Tell the story. Repeat the story. Shine a spotlight on the story every chance you get.

History will not be kind to Gary Bauer, so long as we have something to do with it.

As a gay African-American, I've heard the argument about how "you can't compare the gay civil rights movement to the African-American civil rights movement" more times than I care to count.

The constant so-called moral outrage of some African-American heterosexuals when the topic is mentioned has gotten me to the point where my mind automatically tunes out the monotonous drones of how supposed sinful homosexuals are "high jacking" the civil rights movement or how gays "can't compare their sin with black skin."

As such, I almost missed the epiphany which occurred over two weeks ago.

I was vaguely scanning comments on a conservative site by an anonymous African-American female as she went on and on about how gays were never subjected to slavery, segregation or declared three fifths a person. While the logical side of my mind was gathering up the customary argument of how wrong it was for disadvantaged people of any stripe to play the "Oppression Olympics," the emotional side of my mind struck immediately.

"This is the most ignorant crap I've ever heard," I thought. "Just where in the hell does she think gay black people were during slavery and segregation? On a spaceship orbiting the Earth? "

I was instantly struck by oddity of what I had thought. Not that my outrage wasn't coming from a place of truth, mind you, but how the simple fact never entered my mind that yes, gay people were subjected to slavery, segregation and racism because of our skin. Just as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people of color exist now, we existed back then. Then it suddenly struck me again that I've never recalled any acknowledgement of this fact during the myriad of discussions, I've read, listened to or seen regarding comparisons between the gay and civil rights movements.

And why is that?

There have been numerous debates, articles, columns, movies and documentaries about how the legacy of racism has had a negative effect on so many aspects of African-American community, from our families to the way we interact with each other. It stands to reason that the legacy of racism didn't leave LGBT people of color unscathed. But information about what LGBT people of color did during those awful times in our history or what effect it has had on us is practically nonexistent.

It is a subject hardly ever mentioned. No one talks about it in the black community and that includes leaders, intellectuals, journalists, authors or any other person with some type of platform.

And this leaves me feeling as if the events of black history, which are supposed to be a part of my heritage, are nothing more than hand-me-downs donated to me out of charity because there are very few, if any, events which are specific to me as an LGBT person of color.

Or at least that's what I am led to believe by the black community at large.

It's all part and parcel of being an LGBT person of color. Generally in both the LGBT and African-American communities, LGBT people of color tend to always find ourselves in the background while someone else is doing the talking and planning. Apparently we are only good enough as faces but without voices or opinions regarding strategies or leadership. And our issues are not considered important, but examples of "identity politics" gone too far.

It is slowly (and I mean very slowly) changing in the LGBT community, but it is in the black community where LGBT people of color run up against a massive brick wall. There is a pattern of erasure which strips our presence from the majority of black history. And this pattern of erasure bleeds into day-to-day treatment and interactions. Personal biases and prejudices prevent us from being considered as genuine members of the black community and many heterosexual African-Americans conveniently ignore issues and concerns indigenous to us as LGBT people.

When African-American civic organizations talk about "the state of Black America," we are omitted. We are talked about as examples of how tolerant the black community is becoming rather than conversed with as African-Americans who just happen to be gay but with a genuine stake in the survival of the community. In the rare moment that we are able to interact with other members of the black community in discussions about our lives, we barely get a word in edgewise while they seem to always monopolize the conversation.

To some African-American heterosexuals, we are mere sidebars or addendums. We are objects they hurl Biblical scripture at to cover up their own religious shortcomings or soulless reservoirs of salacious gossip holding court in places like beauty parlors.

Supposedly righteous church ladies or upstanding church men smile in our faces but then hypocritically say rude things behind our backs because we seem "too butch" to be a "real woman" or "too swishy" to be a "real man." And while they do this, they are totally oblivious to the fact that we are hip to their behavior but will disguise our hurt as a show of respect.

Being an LGBT person is not considered an identity by some in the black community, but rather a condition placed upon you by an unfortunate occurrence or mishap. And for the benefit of those who know what I am talking about, no one "turned me out." I was born this way.

Some LGBT people of color condition ourselves to accept these roles and disrespect because we fear rejection and isolation. This behavior is often mistaken as a reason for the problem rather than a result.

The sad fact is that some in the black community at large simply refuse to see LGBT people of color in the same light as they would see each other. And the erasure of our voices and faces from black history is proof of this because it is an example of how they deny us our heritage and our place at the table on our own terms rather than the terms of their fearful and misguided perceptions.

Conservative pundit Erick Erickson knows just who’s to blame for the dearth of research funds devoted to combating Ebola: “fat lesbians.”

In a post for his RedState.com blog this morning, Erickson assails a new ad highlighting the GOP’s support for budget cuts that crippled the agencies charged with leading the response to Ebola. Over the weekend, National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins told the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein that 10 years of stagnant spending on the agency has “slowed down” critical research. As Stein reports, the NIH’s budget in fiscal year 2004 was $28.03 billion. In 2013, it was just $29.31 billion — “barely a change, even before adjusting for inflation,” Stein notes. A Democratic bill to boost the NIH’s budget to $46 billion by 2021 isn’t likely to advance anytime soon.But Erickson pooh-poohs the budget cuts to agencies like the NIH and the Centers for Disease Control. All the evidence you need that the agencies have plenty of cash, he argues, is in some of the research items they’ve funded.

Erickson’s post, titled “Fat Lesbians Got All the Ebola Dollars, But Blame the GOP,” cites an NIH-funded study examining why lesbians confront higher rates of obesity; the research is in line with other demographic studies examining public health challenges, but Erickson seized on the study to wage a demagogic attack on the agency for frivolously “studying the propensity of lesbians to be fat.” He also attacked CDC research on gun violence and smoking cessation.

No doubt some folks will be attempting to pick "sense" out of nonsense and accuse me of not focusing on the content of Erickson's argument instead of the words he uses. I'm not going to argue the content of an argument fueled by nasty words and neither should anyone else. An intelligent debate doesn't begin with slurs.

But more to the point, where is the accountability here? I don't mean Erickson's employer, Fox News. If that den of propaganda began showing any accountability, Erickson would have to get in line when it comes to employees who should be reprimanded for ugly slurs.

I'm talking about from other journalists. Where is the outrage from folks who do care about this business and what image it presents? There is none. Erickson will probably continue to be cited, quoted, and respected in some quarters as a legitimate journalist.

And even more than that, Erickson has on more than on occasion attacked the lgbt community on the belief that we are sinning against God. He even spoke at the 2014 Values Voter Summit, the annual event put on by the Family Research Council, a group which claims to stand for Christian values. Naturally FRC, as well as other so-called morality Christian groups, are conveniently silent about Erickson's anti-lesbian slur.

In case the irony escapes you, that means Erickson believes homosexuality to be a sin, but slurring lgbts is cool with God.

All in all, any journalist or Christian who cares about integrity and credibility would be embarrassed to be associated with someone with no taste, no class, no dignity, and absolutely no sense of how hypocritical he is. One would think that they would bend over backwards to disassociate themselves from a sexist, homophobic "never was" who should thank God that he has more chances in the journalism business than the proverbial cat has lives.

But sadly, such aspirations of virtue are only a dream in many quarters of American journalism and Christianity.

Wednesday morning, several progressives groups including the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and People for the American Way published an open letter in the Washington Post and The Hill which called out the Republican Party for its allegiance to anti-gay groups such as the Family Research Council and for the decision of several Republicans to attend that organization's upcoming Values Voter Summit.

Later that night, in a show of unbelievable stupidity, the Family Research Council took the bait by answering the letter via email with a bit of bravado and a lot of lies:

What annual event has the Left so worried that they are spending tens of thousands in advertising dollars to stop? You guessed it; the Values Voters Summit. In today's Washington Post, leftwing groups including GLAAD, (known for its failed campaign to fire Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson,) the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center, and the George Soros-funded "Faithful America," signed onto a three-quarters page ad demanding that speakers "not attend the Values Voter Summit."

The lies came about when FRC attacked the Southern Poverty Law Center, which it has a special dislike of ever since SPLC declared it an anti-gay hate group in 2010:

Last year, the FBI dumped the SPLC as a website resource and the U.S. Army distanced themselves from the SPLC. A federal court ruled against the SPLC in a harassment lawsuit it brought against a pro-family group. Even the SPLC's own supporters are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the SPLC's attacks on free speech. It is odd that some people feel the need to attack those who are merely defending religious liberty and affirming the importance of the type o f relationship which naturally provides children with a mother and a father. There will continue to be disagreement on how marriage should be defined, but reasonable people can approach this subject respectfully, thoughtfully and passionately. If you are in the D.C. area this weekend, please join us at the Values Voter Summit as we exercise our First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly.

As Good As You’s Jeremy Hooper noted, the FBI continues to list SPLC as a partner in the fight against hate crimes on its website.

The right-wing narrative is also contradicted by an official statement from the FBI. In a statement to The Daily Caller, and FBI spokesperson said:

“Upon review, the Civil Rights program only provides links to resources within the federal government,” an FBI spokesman told The Daily Caller. “While we appreciate the tremendous support we receive from a variety of organizations, we have elected not to identify those groups on the civil rights page.”

2. Did the US Army distance themselves from the Southern Poverty Law Center?

No. FRC exaggerated on the incident. Last year, an SPLC briefing was held at Camp Shelby in Mississippi. In this briefing, certain SPLC-designated hate groups were listed, including the American Family Association. Conservatives and religious right spokespeople - such as Fox News personality Todd Starnes - falsely claimed that SPLC was attacking AFA for its religious values, when in actuality AFA was listed as a hate group because of the false and slanderous things it says about the lgbt community. These folks caused so much of a stink that future briefings were halted.

3. Are former supporters of SPLC turning their backs on the organization?

No. The link FRC provided as proof of this is a column from a conservative site, cnsnews.com, by an African-American woman named Catherine Davis. While she rails against SPLC, at no time did she ever indicate that she was ever a supporter of the organization. Nor was her column about SPLC's supposed attack on free speech. It was criticizing the lgbt community. Davis was allowing the predominantly white conservative establishment to use her in order to exploit the supposed gay vs. black divide.

4. What was the lawsuit SPLC "lost" against a pro-family group?

Even that claim by FRC isn't totally true. SPLC had sued an anti-gay group, Public Advocate (which is another SPLC-designated hate group), on the behalf of a gay couple whose personal photos the organization digitally altered and used for anti-gay campaign ads. The judge in the case only dismissed part of the lawsuit.

U.S. District Court Judge Wiley Daniel agreed the photo’s use was noncommercial and a matter of legitimate public concern. However, he also ruled the couple and their photographer have a possible copyright infringement claim.

In June, the photographer, Kristina Hill, won a judgement of $2501 against Public Advocate for copyright infringement.

Let's be real about something - none of the organizations who signed that letter are so naive as to think they could stop the Values Voter Summit from taking place nor could they keep Republicans from attending.

And certainly the purpose of the letter wasn't to stifle speech.

The purpose of the letter was mainly strategic. Its goal was to educate the public and continue debate about the real face of the Family Research Council and other groups who claim to stand for morality and Christianity.

Remember this passage in the letter:

These groups engage in repeated, groundless demonization of LGBT people — portraying them as sick, vile, incestuous, violent, perverted, and a danger to the nation.

The Family Research Council, the summit’s host, is vigorously opposed to extending equal rights to the LGBT community. Its president, Tony Perkins, has repeatedly claimed that pedophilia is a “homosexual problem.” He has called the “It Gets Better” campaign — designed to give LGBT students hope for a better tomorrow — “disgusting” and a “concerted effort” to “recruit” children into the gay “lifestyle.”4 He has condemned the National Republican Congressional Committee for supporting three openly gay candidates.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, a summit sponsor, has said the U.S. needs to “be more like Russia,” which enacted a law criminalizing the distribution of LGBT “propaganda.” He also has said, “Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine, and six million dead Jews.”

Similarly, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, another summit sponsor, has compared those who do not denounce same-sex marriage to those who remained silent during the Holocaust. Marriage equality, he has said, is the “beginning of the end of Western civilization.”

And thanks to FRC's absolutely stupid decision to answer the letter, particularly with lies about SPLC, the groups who signed the letter succeeded in their purpose.

FRC's behavior reminds me of the fable of the vicious dog who bit so many people that a bell was hung around its neck so as to warn folks when it was coming. The dog, totally ignorant, took the bell as sign of distinction and rang it constantly.

Imagine how stupid it felt when an older dog said, "what you mistake for a mark of fame and honor is actually a reminder of how much of a disgrace you are."

Feel free to ring your bell anytime you want by responding to the claims that you are a hate group, FRC. No matter how much you lie, we know the truth.

And what you really are - a bad dog without a leash nipping at the heels of every lgbt you can find.

This newest tripe, I mean action alert by the Family Research Council has gotten me a bit angry. The organization is pushing a bill which could allow adoption agencies and foster care providers to engage in anti-gay discrimination under the guise of religious freedom (see the bill here):

In California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and D.C. religious adoption and foster care providers have had their government funding pulled and have been forced to end services, simply because they continue to believe in the importance of a child having a mom and a dad. It's a sad sign of the times that some states have preferred to sever longstanding partnerships with faith-based providers rather than allow them to continue caring for and placing children informed by traditional moral beliefs about the family. This important legislation sponsored by Congressman Mike Kelly in the House and Senator Mike Enzi in the Senate will ensure that the interests of children are placed ahead of political correctness.

Specifically, this bill will prohibit discrimination against faith-based child welfare service providers by the federal government and by states receiving federal funds for adoption and foster care services. The Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act will prohibit such discrimination against faith-based child welfare service providers and will threaten states continuing such discrimination with a loss of federal funding. This important legislation will ensure that the maximum number of child welfare service providers can continue to advocate for children and will ensure that many adoptive families can continue to work with a provider which shares their core beliefs.

For the record, adoption agencies, religious based or otherwise, are allowed to place children in homes with mothers and fathers. What this proposed monstrosity could do is to allow religious based adoption agencies and foster care providers to discriminate against gay households while using our tax dollars.

No doubt, FRC and other supporters of this bill will attempt to paint the lgbt community as selfish if we raise any objections about this bill. It's definitely by intention that the organization uses vague code words and phrases about "core beliefs," children doing better with a mother and a father," "traditional moral beliefs" and all of the other board room talking points which are usually voiced by those seeking to deny the existence of same-sex households with children.

I don't think it's wrong or selfish for the lgbt community to assert our rights and dignity as taxpaying American citizens here. And I definitely refuse to believe that in doing so, we are hurting children.

It's been proven in study after study (the most recent being earlier this month) that we can raise children just as well as two-parent heterosexual households. This view has also been validated numerous times by the courts, including the Supreme Court when it overturned DOMA last year. . Therefore, in the case of adoption agencies and foster care providers who want to discriminate against gay couples, we are talking about organizations who want to assert their personal religious preference instead of what's best for the child.

If religious-based adoption agencies and foster care providers don't think that gay households are suitable enough to raise children then they shouldn't be so eager to have their hands out in order to receive gay tax dollars.

It's bad enough when it is asserted that we are not good enough to raise and nurture children. Having to pay for that non-privilege further reduces the gay community to the level of slaves in a masochistic relationship with our government . . . and all under the guise of "religious freedom."

One of the most transparent tactics opponents of marriage equality will attempt is to claim that supporters of marriage equality are intolerant of their opinion.

It's not only a transparent tactic but highly cynical. And apparently it's the tactic that Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is attempting:

While Rubio has consistently held conservative positions on abortion and gay marriage, his current emphasis appears to be an effort to appeal to social conservatives who have yet to settle on a favored candidate for 2016. "Even before this speech is over, I will be attacked as someone who is a hater or a bigot," Rubio said.

.. . In his remarks, Rubio acknowledged the United States has a history of discrimination against gays and lesbians. But he said he could not support such unions despite a quick-moving shift in public opinion in support of allowing same-sex couples to marry. "There is a growing intolerance on this issue," Rubio said of those who back same-sex marriages. He then urged his opponents to show civility: "Tolerance is also a two-way street."

No doubt, the folks at Fox News and members of the media who care more about attaining "access" than getting the story correct will fall for Rubio's junk.

But I agree with him that there needs to be civility on the issue. And let's start with addressing the following:

No one has ever claimed that the Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber has ever observed simple rules of good taste and decorum in his attacks on lgbt equality. However, it is extremely safe to say that the image below, accompanying his post on The Coming Christian Revolt goes way beyond anything – a rainbow flag superimposed behind a photo of African-American protestors being sprayed with water hoses during the Civil Rights Movement.

It's not only a personal insult to me as an lgbt but also an African-American that Barber would exploit what I consider sacred images in order to make a false point.

There will be no "coming Christian revolt," Mr. Barber because no Christian in this country is being discriminated against. Being told to treat everyone the same is not discrimination. Providing goods and services to people whose taxes pay for the safety of your business is not discrimination.

Your disagreement with the fact that lgbts should have the same rights as heterosexuals is just that - YOUR disagreement. You have a right to believe that, but you don't have a right to codify it into law, particularly if your codification involves junk science, cherry-picked science, or out-and-out lies.

You are not entitled to anything, Mr. Barber. If you are, please educate me. And by all means, please tell me how the elimination of your entitlements ranks next to being denied the right to vote, segregation, lynching, being called "boy" or "gal" as a deliberate sign of disrespect. And if that's too difficult for you, then answer me this:

Where the hell do you get off exploiting the images and legacy of Americans who suffered for simple freedoms to justify the fact that you don't want to get off that pedestal of yours; a pedestal which you created based upon your concept of being a Christian.

Peep this, Mr. Barber and everyone else who thinks like you. Calling yourself a Christian does not give you special privileges in this country. Calling yourself a Christian does not make you a better American than me. And calling yourself a Christian does not absolve you from rights and responsibilities that all Americans have. This is not nor has it ever been a Christian nation and the rest of us who don't practice your beliefs do not exist here for your will and pleasure.

You are nothing but petulant spoiled child who mistakes the circles he runs with and the access he has as evidence of his own intellect and God's love for him when in fact its a strong possibility that these are evidence of God's love for the rest of us.

Sometimes giving a petulant child the very thing he wants is the best way to show the world just how much of a vulgar individual he really is.